Allowed

Thurpu Nirmala and 8 Others v. K.Sathyanarayana and Another

Telangana HC13 Sept 2023CRLP/6056/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In State Telangana represented by K. Sathyanarayana v. Thurpu Nirmala, a criminal petition was filed to quash proceedings for violating election codes under Section 188 IPC. The High Court held that under Section 195 Cr.P.C., cognizance requires a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., allowing the petition. Proceedings against nine accused were quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 9 in STC No. 06 of 2015 filed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy are quashed.

Thurpu Nirmala and 8 Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE,

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PET]TION NO: 6056 0F 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1. THURPU NIRMALA, Wo Jayaprakash Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No 2-6-131, Ramnagar, Sanga heOOy, Medak District

¶9

K.sulatha, S/o Raju Aged about 35-years, o1. gouse wife, Rl/o H.No 3_95, Gowthiminagar,^patancheru. Medak Districi

¶10

S Geetha, S/o Saibaba, Aged about 40 years, Occ House Wife, Rl/o H.No 3_ 95, Gowthiminagar, patancheru. MeOak Districi

¶11

4 I .JrY^a:rl, Wo. Jayaprakash Aged about 38 years, Occ House Wife, R/o H.No 3-9S, Gowthiminagar, pataniheru. Medak Dllrict

¶12

G.Jayamma, S/o Navein Kumar, Aged aUort 5O years, Occ Business, Ri/o

¶13

^^{I-1.1,19?-64, Chianthanya Nagar, pataicheru. Medak Oistrict}

¶14

6 YD;M9{1r:,.S/o Khaja Miya, Aged aboul 32 ylars, O.c House Wife, Rl/o H,No 4-54, Adampalty, putkai Mandat Medak Disirici

¶15

- 1. Aloori Bramhanandhar".dg.y, .^{g{" RamReddy,AgeO aOout37 years,Occ}

¶16

-^{Business, R/o Bagluru, pulkal Mandal nleOak Oistriit} 8. Shaik Raffee, S/o Shadu,a, Aged about 22 yearis, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No 3- 1 16, Ramchandrapuram,

¶17

MD. Nazeem, S/o Hussain, Aged about 22 years, Occ Driver, Ryo H.No 2_6_ 131 Ram Nagar Sanga Reddy Medak Distrct

¶18

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSEDl TO 9

¶19

AND

¶20

K.SATHYANARAyANA, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ pHE extension Officer, Ramchandrapuram, HACI Election model code of conduct of Ramchandrapuram.

¶21

2 rhestateof reransana,*"r;,":i":1?T3.,ili:.J,.lg:3,;:,1fitt'mT Hyderabad

¶22

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶23

Petition under section -4g2 0t cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar Fetition, the High court may be pleased to quash ail further proceedings agrin.i ine petiiioners i-",sil:N". do of 2015 on the fire of the Additionar Juiicia-t riisi ctass narsirtrrt" ,t b';;;; Reddy.

¶24

l.A. NO: 't OF 2017(CRLPMP. NO:6174 OF 20171

¶25

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition,the High court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including personal attendance of petitioners in STC No. 06 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Judicial First class Magistrate at Sanga Reddy.

¶26

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri pRASAD RAVANABOINA ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 none for the Respondent No. 1.

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O56 oI 2Ol7

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash all further proceedings against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 9 in STC No.06 of 2O15 on the hle of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/ accused for the offences punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C.

¶33

Heard learned counsel appearing for the^petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the^2"d respondent-State. None appeared lor the 1st respondent. Perused the record.

¶34

The brief facts of the case are that on 13.O9.2074 at^about 01.O0 hours, the 1st respondent herein^lodged a^written complaint stating that clear instructions^{were given} by the Election Commission regarding forthcoming Medak Lok Sabha bye elections on 13.O9.2O14 and he '".as appointed^{as Election} Co-ordinator of Ramchandrapuram Mandal to implement the model code of conduct and rules for the Medak^{Lok Sabhabye} elections. Inspite of clear instructions, Accused^No. I^i.e.,

¶35

¶36

Thurpu Nirmala W/o.^{JayaprakashReddy, Ex-MLA,} Sangareddy, aiong *ith^{accused Nos'2 to thave. violated thc} election model code of^{conductand ruies by canvassing and} using the BJP party signals^{pamphletsat 23 3O hours on} l2.Og.2Ol4 in Bombay^{Colony,Ramchandrapuram'On rebeipt} of the above complaint, a^{case in CrimeNo 59O/ 2014was} registered for the offence^{punishableunder Section188 of IPC'} After completion of the investigation,^{a charge sheet has been} fited, which was taken cognizance^{as STC.No.6of 2O15on the} file of rhe learned Additional^{JudicialMagistrate of FirstClass,} Sangareddy for the offence^{punishableunderSection 188 of} I.P.C. The present Criminal^{Petition is hled seekingto quash} the proceedings in S.T.C.No^{.6 of 2Ol5-}

¶37

Learned counsel appearing^{forthe petitionerswould} submit that pendency of^{crimewas bad in law in view of bar} under Section 195 of Cr.P.C,^{which prohibits aCourt from} taking cognizance on the basis^{of a charge sheet for the offence} punishable under Section 188 of IPC.^{Therefore, the iearned} counsel seeks to quash all^{furtherproceedings against themin} STC No.O6 of 2O15 on the file^{of the learned Additionat Judicial} First Class Magistrate at Sanga Reddy.^{In supportof his} contention, learned counsel for the^{petitioners had relied upon}

¶38

¶39

the^judgments in the case of Kottu Satyanarayana v. State of

¶40

Andhra Pradeshl.

¶41

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would also submit that unless and until the said complaint has been registered under Section 2OO of Cr.P.C., the Court ought not to have taken cogn izance of the offence.

¶42

Recording the submissions made by both the learned counsel as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and also ielying upon the^judgment of this Court referred to above, it is very clear that Section 195 of Cr.P.C. contemplates that^all the allegations leveled in the complaint should be filed^under Section 2O0 Cr.P.C. only and not under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.

¶43

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners / accused Nos. I to 9 in STC No.O6 of 2O 15 on the hle of the learned^{Additional Judicial} Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy are hereby^quashed.

¶44

zori⁽⁾ 4uOCcvl.)^S+r-@P)

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

5ol-p.ct.ltncABHusHAM^BA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.,/-t' SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

1 The Additional Juridical^{First Class Magistrate at SangaReddy'} 2 The Station House^{Officer, P.S RC Puram, Medak'}

¶49

3 One CC to SRl.^{PRASADRAVANABOINA Advocate [OPUC]} 4 iwo ccs to the ASSTSTANT^{PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(TG) High courrfor} the State of^{Telangana, at Hyderabad.{OUTI}

¶50

5 Two CD CoPies TL NS

"Y-

HIGH COURT

EWJ

DATED:13/09/2023

STATE oA
q c)
l
oo tl utt 1t8 A'
+
* DES' 6iC

¶56

ORDER

¶57

CRLP.No.6056 ot2017

¶58

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶59

crt&4 r k-1Til,3

Thurpu Nirmala and 8 Others v. K.Sathyanarayana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thurpu Nirmala and 8 Others v. K.Sathyanarayana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patnam Sai Kumar, Dilsukhnagar Vs P.S., Uppal, Hyd

Hanuman Joshi, Secbad Vs M. Dilip Kumar Desai, Secbad and Ano

Katikireddy Sriram Reddy Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Vanguluri Suresh, Karimnagar Vs Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar and Another

M.Danam, Rc Puram, Medak District Vs T.Srinivas, Medak District and Another, Rep.by P.P, High Court

Punreddy Narender Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana